|
Post by ericfromnj on Dec 26, 2012 23:39:44 GMT -8
I make lots of choices, but one of my choices is not to fudge rolls. As a GM I can't see the reason not to play Amber if I am fudging.
Malifer, the way you "spun" it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense from my perspective. I've seen suggestions to talk about the creature killing the character and not the GM rolls just so that it doesn't turn into a "player versus GM" type thing, but the GM denying something because of random tables? I've seen the GM who doesn't want to kill people. I haven't ever seen what I *think* you are describing (Mind you, I could be missing something. Seriously.)
FYI, I consider this a personal mindset and people are not heretics for choosing a different path...
As for exploding d8's in the first 5 minutes, I would suggest not having a combat in the first five minutes of game with a system where the dice explode. (GURPs looks promising in this regard...)
I honestly think not fudging has made me a better GM (or at least prepared me for 60+ PCs and NPCs not fully under my control) because it forces me to look at the adventure design much more closely. I can't just get away with "that was shit" (even when it was) because there was a fundamental flaw in my adventure design.
That being said...Savagedaddy, exploding dice systems are a bitch to do no fudge. Oh it can be painful...
|
|
kroh
Supporter
Posts: 132
|
Post by kroh on Dec 26, 2012 23:54:52 GMT -8
Sheeple!
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Dec 27, 2012 0:15:22 GMT -8
However I take umbrage with this line of thought. . Character death is the result of the free will and random chance not a decision for the GM to make. Yes it is. I control everything except the player's decision. I decided whether or not there are gods, resurrection spells, or even the wind. So I have a pretty big say in the randomness. My job as GM is not "goblin token mover" or "block text reader". It is "fun bringer". I'm glad this community exists and appreciate everyone's opinions and view on this topic. When I said, "Character death is the result of free will and random chance not a decision for the GM to make" I was trying to express that GMs should remain neutral when player characters choose to do obviously reckless things. I think the whole 'fudging dice rolls debate' comes down to a single point of contention; Storytelling and RPG Mechanics don't mix. The uncomfortable truth is that the established resolution method of most role-playing games is a random dice mechanic. While I agree that an unexpected roll that results in the unheroic, or premature, death of a player character can be detrimental to the game and everyone's fun, everyone playing the game has (or should have) agreed to the established rules. DitV author Vincent Barker may have said it best when he wrote, "Say Yes or Roll the Dice". If it is that critical to the plot of your game as a GM, don't leave it to chance. Don't even bother rolling. Decide ahead of time what the NPC reactions and strategies will be and role-play it out. To fudge, or not to fudge... that is the question. As I see it, the question is problematic and flawed. The arguments for fudging a die roll is built on the premise that there is something at stake that far outweighs the need for fairness and it is the GMs responsibility to disregard the agreed upon rules to serve the dramatic needs of the story and ensure the enjoyment of the players. It's a compelling argument... it seems harmless enough. What's the big deal? The problem I have with it is that it violates a social contract. Our society values honesty and equality. This is especially true in regard to leaders and authorities, whom we demand absolute honesty regardless of stakes. This social contract exists in the game as well. A player who is caught fudging a die roll to avoid a negative consequence for their character, is often met with disdain by the GM and other players. It's considered 'cheating'. As GMs, we're expected to provide a compelling story and be fair arbitrators of the rules. Fudging jeopardizes our ability to remain fair in the long term for a momentary reprieve from consequences. Once you start ignoring the rules to get the result you want, it is incredibly hard to stop and inevitably slips into railroading on one level or another. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Should a player come to suspect that their fate is being decided by the will of the GM rather than the established mechanics or the fall of the dice, it is reasonable to ask which situations the GM has resolved in this manner. Ultimately, GM fudging is a matter of personal choice. Personally (as a player or GM) I despise it. I'll also admit that I am guilty of doing it on a few occasions. It is a slippery slope.That being said, I choose to roll combat in the open because it removes the temptation for me to fudge the results while holding me to the same standard of accountability expected from everyone at the table.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 27, 2012 3:30:46 GMT -8
I think fudging (by the GM) is just a divisive issue. Everyone has an opinion and it won't change because it's their game, their table, their group. Intrinsically it isn't right or wrong or good or bad. Personally I have to go with Kimmy in this one - 'read the situation, weigh the merits, make a choice then move on'. To defend the temptation to fudge and clarify probability: sometimes the dice roll badly despite the apparent math that says they should roll fairly - that's the actual math of probability. You know that probability says if you flip a coin you should get heads approximately 50% of the time . . . But it is not impossible (only improbable) to flip heads 100 times in succession. As each flip is independent of the preceding result. I believe that most GM's who have fudged have done so because probability has been a bitch and broken the assumed math of the system . . . Because probability is always a bitch: 'the 1 in a 1000 chance that seems to pop up every 1 in 100'. The other factor is game vs story: they're not mutually exclusive they're inter-related. You can't have one with the other - that's why the GM us often referred to as the referee. Analogous to a sports referee - 'was the ball out if touch?' referee decides and the game plays on. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 27, 2012 4:10:08 GMT -8
I make lots of choices, but one of my choices is not to fudge rolls. As a GM I can't see the reason not to play Amber if I am fudging. Malifer, the way you "spun" it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense from my perspective. I've seen suggestions to talk about the creature killing the character and not the GM rolls just so that it doesn't turn into a "player versus GM" type thing, but the GM denying something because of random tables? I've seen the GM who doesn't want to kill people. I haven't ever seen what I *think* you are describing (Mind you, I could be missing something. Seriously.) . Sorry for any confusion, but I think both reasons are bogus. One side says the GM is a whiny, pansy, free love hippie socialist. The other side says the GM is a rules lawyer, closed minded iron fisted Despot. I think both are inaccurate. But as far as a GM that have trouble thinking outside the rulebook, yeah I have seen plenty of them. It's a lot of no you can't do that or it's not in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 27, 2012 4:26:36 GMT -8
However I take umbrage with this line of thought. Yes it is. I control everything except the player's decision. I decided whether or not there are gods, resurrection spells, or even the wind. So I have a pretty big say in the randomness. My job as GM is not "goblin token mover" or "block text reader". It is "fun bringer". I'm glad this community exists and appreciate everyone's opinions and view on this topic. When I said, "Character death is the result of free will and random chance not a decision for the GM to make" I was trying to express that GMs should remain neutral when player characters choose to do obviously reckless things. I think the whole 'fudging dice rolls debate' comes down to a single point of contention; Storytelling and RPG Mechanics don't mix. The uncomfortable truth is that the established resolution method of most role-playing games is a random dice mechanic. While I agree that an unexpected roll that results in the unheroic, or premature, death of a player character can be detrimental to the game and everyone's fun, everyone playing the game has (or should have) agreed to the established rules. DitV author Vincent Barker may have said it best when he wrote, "Say Yes or Roll the Dice". If it is that critical to the plot of your game as a GM, don't leave it to chance. Don't even bother rolling. Decide ahead of time what the NPC reactions and strategies will be and role-play it out. To fudge, or not to fudge... that is the question. As I see it, the question is problematic and flawed. The arguments for fudging a die roll is built on the premise that there is something at stake that far outweighs the need for fairness and it is the GMs responsibility to disregard the agreed upon rules to serve the dramatic needs of the story and ensure the enjoyment of the players. It's a compelling argument... it seems harmless enough. What's the big deal? The problem I have with it is that it violates a social contract. Our society values honesty and equality. This is especially true in regard to leaders and authorities, whom we demand absolute honesty regardless of stakes. This social contract exists in the game as well. A player who is caught fudging a die roll to avoid a negative consequence for their character, is often met with disdain by the GM and other players. It's considered 'cheating'. As GMs, we're expected to provide a compelling story and be fair arbitrators of the rules. Fudging jeopardizes our ability to remain fair in the long term for a momentary reprieve from consequences. Once you start ignoring the rules to get the result you want, it is incredibly hard to stop and inevitably slips into railroading on one level or another. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Should a player come to suspect that their fate is being decided by the will of the GM rather than the established mechanics or the fall of the dice, it is reasonable to ask which situations the GM has resolved in this manner. Ultimately, GM fudging is a matter of personal choice. Personally (as a player or GM) I despise it. I'll also admit that I am guilty of doing it on a few occasions. It is a slippery slope.That being said, I choose to roll combat in the open because it removes the temptation for me to fudge the results while holding me to the same standard of accountability expected from everyone at the table. Umm...it's a game. I see no need to start comparing my fun with the Social Contract of society. Life isn't fair, it's why I want to have some fun. Some people play a board game like it is life and death. Those people freak me out a little. I completely agree with the premise of "Say Yes or Roll". Which is why I think there is no need to fudge "stealth", etc. But the GM is not just another player at the table. If he is not there to show the players a good time, then why not play a video game where the AI is bound by math. Does that mean it's easy street? Nope. Sometimes you have read the situation and decide.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Dec 27, 2012 6:19:57 GMT -8
Malifer, The social contract that Savage Daddy is talking about (and SD feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) is what I refer to as, "the Explicit Contract of Play." This is the agreement that all the participants of the game have that all events in the game will be resolved the same way every time without bias or personal opinion. Let me be perfectly clear here, a gm fudging dice rolls is a violation of that contract because the gm is saying in effect, "Here's the contract of play, unless I deem it to be otherwise." However, if the gm is up front about it, or it is known to the players that the gm might throw out a die roll if he thinks it's necessary can become part of that contract as well. To cut it down to brass tacks, here's the problem, and why I freely admit that I have fudged dice rolls, and why I struggle with this topic. I as the gm cannot accurately predict the effect of killing a player character on the game. Every time I try, I'm wrong almost without exception. So, rather than try it makes much more sense (to me) for me to do what I can do which is follow along and fill in the stuff around the pc's and try to make sure that whatever their actions they have meaning. I am increasingly of the mind that I'm not going to fudge dice rolls (might want to keep that in mind if you're playing in one of my upcoming convention games. ) and let the dice fall where they may. What I think I will do instead is be prepared to facilitate getting that player back to being involved in the game as quickly and as smoothly as possible. In regards to a comment Stork made that basically went, (and he was paraphrasing a theoretical player) "Well, we've been playing 5 minutes and I haven't even done anything with this character that you just killed so I'm going to use the same character with a different name," I would be opposed to that idea because that would invalidate the death of the character which I as the gm have every intention of now making a plot point somehow. Just my rambling waffle of thought, JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 27, 2012 6:42:51 GMT -8
Dice rolls, mechanics and probability. The mechanics are based on the assumed probability and, I've said earlier, that can break and break the mechanics and therefore the system into the bargain. There is a theoretically foolproof system to roulette, it works I know from trying it - don't use in a casino you'll be barred but you can use it online - but probability being a bitch can break it even though probability says the odds against are astronomically high. I stopped using it when my last spin of the ball rested on a £16000 bet - I won but only cleared a £1000 profit because of previous losses - looking at roulette statistics it has happened that the system has broken because the house rolled red 32x in succession invalidating the system unless one could front the 32 losses to cover the next bet and profit (the math = a fuck ton of money for a small gain). Do you, as a GM, let the improbable ruin the fun in a game? How do you decide? . . . Contract or no contract . . . The situation informs the choice remembering its only a game and it's supposed to be fun. Have you never let someone re roll at monopoly because your all a bit drunk and fuck why not we are just having a bit of fun? Or fudged at trivial pursuit because that relative visiting isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the box but he's still a fine fellow and why make home feel stupid(er)? If you fudge great, if you don't fudge great . . . Don't let it ruin your life worrying about the metaphysics and morality if it. Cause after probability the next biggest bitch is philosophy - because for every argument there is a counter, the actual argument is the thing in philosophy circles (those guys can't help flaming each other it's just part and parcel if the discipline: thank god I dropped out after 2 years of it) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Dec 27, 2012 6:56:50 GMT -8
I agree with Kainguru completely. If "not fudging" is your bag, super have fun. But talk of fairness and calling people that don't agree "cheaters" is a bit silly. The players have the climb skill, the Game Master can move mountains. To Jib, I was more referencing that SD started comparing the Ethics of Politics into a game of fun. It's a bit extreme for me. Just my stupid thoughts. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Dec 27, 2012 12:44:53 GMT -8
Malifer, The social contract that Savage Daddy is talking about (and SD feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) is what I refer to as, "the Explicit Contract of Play." This is the agreement that all the participants of the game have that all events in the game will be resolved the same way every time without bias or personal opinion. Let me be perfectly clear here, a gm fudging dice rolls is a violation of that contract because the gm is saying in effect, "Here's the contract of play, unless I deem it to be otherwise." However, if the gm is up front about it, or it is known to the players that the gm might throw out a die roll if he thinks it's necessary can become part of that contract as well. To cut it down to brass tacks, here's the problem, and why I freely admit that I have fudged dice rolls, and why I struggle with this topic. I as the gm cannot accurately predict the effect of killing a player character on the game. Every time I try, I'm wrong almost without exception. So, rather than try it makes much more sense (to me) for me to do what I can do which is follow along and fill in the stuff around the pc's and try to make sure that whatever their actions they have meaning. I am increasingly of the mind that I'm not going to fudge dice rolls (might want to keep that in mind if you're playing in one of my upcoming convention games. ) and let the dice fall where they may. What I think I will do instead is be prepared to facilitate getting that player back to being involved in the game as quickly and as smoothly as possible. In regards to a comment Stork made that basically went, (and he was paraphrasing a theoretical player) "Well, we've been playing 5 minutes and I haven't even done anything with this character that you just killed so I'm going to use the same character with a different name," I would be opposed to that idea because that would invalidate the death of the character which I as the gm have every intention of now making a plot point somehow. Just my rambling waffle of thought, JiB JiB, Thank you for the clarification regarding Explicit Contract of Play; it is exactly what I meant... an agreement between all the participants of the game that all events in-game will be resolved the same way every time without bias or personal opinion. I agree that the focus of the GM should be incorporating the character death into the plot and find a way to get the player back into the game as smoothly and quickly as possible. I've also had similar experiences where, as you put it, "I as the GM cannot accurately predict the effect of killing a player character on the game and every time I try, I'm wrong almost without exception". I play Savage Worlds because it has an established game mechanic that allows for 'fudging' die rolls; the benny system. It is an explicit 'die fudging' mechanic whereby player character's can re-roll any undesirable trait test and even soak damage to avoid character death. In essence, the Benny system is an agreement among the players and GM to 'fudge' rolls such a way that re-enforces an Explicit Contract of Play. I am not passing judgement on anyone who chooses to fudge die rolls, or refuses to fudge die rolls. I just wanted to weigh in on a topic that has been raised by the podcast on multiple occasions by explaining the 'reason' behind my personal decision not to fudge die rolls as a GM. If you fudge, great. If you don't fudge, great. In my own experience, the few times I've fudged a die role I have regretted it later. In each case, I realized my guilt wasn't about fudging the die roll, as much as failing my players through a lack of story design, game preparation, and my sheer ignorance of established rules within the system which would have made fudging completely unnecessary. Just saying....
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Dec 27, 2012 14:30:46 GMT -8
I make lots of choices, but one of my choices is not to fudge rolls. As a GM I can't see the reason not to play Amber if I am fudging. Malifer, the way you "spun" it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense from my perspective. I've seen suggestions to talk about the creature killing the character and not the GM rolls just so that it doesn't turn into a "player versus GM" type thing, but the GM denying something because of random tables? I've seen the GM who doesn't want to kill people. I haven't ever seen what I *think* you are describing (Mind you, I could be missing something. Seriously.) . Sorry for any confusion, but I think both reasons are bogus. One side says the GM is a whiny, pansy, free love hippie socialist. The other side says the GM is a rules lawyer, closed minded iron fisted Despot. I think both are inaccurate. But as far as a GM that have trouble thinking outside the rulebook, yeah I have seen plenty of them. It's a lot of no you can't do that or it's not in the rules. Ah, yes. I have seen those.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Dec 27, 2012 14:38:29 GMT -8
Malifer, The social contract that Savage Daddy is talking about (and SD feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) is what I refer to as, "the Explicit Contract of Play." This is the agreement that all the participants of the game have that all events in the game will be resolved the same way every time without bias or personal opinion. Let me be perfectly clear here, a gm fudging dice rolls is a violation of that contract because the gm is saying in effect, "Here's the contract of play, unless I deem it to be otherwise." However, if the gm is up front about it, or it is known to the players that the gm might throw out a die roll if he thinks it's necessary can become part of that contract as well. To cut it down to brass tacks, here's the problem, and why I freely admit that I have fudged dice rolls, and why I struggle with this topic. I as the gm cannot accurately predict the effect of killing a player character on the game. Every time I try, I'm wrong almost without exception. So, rather than try it makes much more sense (to me) for me to do what I can do which is follow along and fill in the stuff around the pc's and try to make sure that whatever their actions they have meaning. I am increasingly of the mind that I'm not going to fudge dice rolls (might want to keep that in mind if you're playing in one of my upcoming convention games. ) and let the dice fall where they may. What I think I will do instead is be prepared to facilitate getting that player back to being involved in the game as quickly and as smoothly as possible. In regards to a comment Stork made that basically went, (and he was paraphrasing a theoretical player) "Well, we've been playing 5 minutes and I haven't even done anything with this character that you just killed so I'm going to use the same character with a different name," I would be opposed to that idea because that would invalidate the death of the character which I as the gm have every intention of now making a plot point somehow. Just my rambling waffle of thought, JiB JiB, Thank you for the clarification regarding Explicit Contract of Play; it is exactly what I meant... an agreement between all the participants of the game that all events in-game will be resolved the same way every time without bias or personal opinion. I agree that the focus of the GM should be incorporating the character death into the plot and find a way to get the player back into the game as smoothly and quickly as possible. I've also had similar experiences where, as you put it, "I as the GM cannot accurately predict the effect of killing a player character on the game and every time I try, I'm wrong almost without exception". I play Savage Worlds because it has an established game mechanic that allows for 'fudging' die rolls; the benny system. It is an explicit 'die fudging' mechanic whereby player character's can re-roll any undesirable trait test and even soak damage to avoid character death. In essence, the Benny system is an agreement among the players and GM to 'fudge' rolls such a way that re-enforces an Explicit Contract of Play. I am not passing judgement on anyone who chooses to fudge die rolls, or refuses to fudge die rolls. I just wanted to weigh in on a topic that has been raised by the podcast on multiple occasions by explaining the 'reason' behind my personal decision not to fudge die rolls as a GM. If you fudge, great. If you don't fudge, great. In my own experience, the few times I've fudged a die role I have regretted it later. In each case, I realized my guilt wasn't about fudging the die roll, as much as failing my players through a lack of story design, game preparation, and my sheer ignorance of established rules within the system which would have made fudging completely unnecessary. Just saying.... I have to say I agree with SD on this mindset. If someone died in the first 5 minutes, I did something horrible in the design stage that needs to be corrected. Mind you, 17 years of catholic school invokes much guilt. Damn Irish nuns... We had part of my fudge free campaign today (it is a purposeful choice and part of the appeal in a strange way) but admittedly I have tweaked Basic D&D to include things like the -10 rule purely to make sure I didn't fill a cemetery really quick. There was a rather lively discussion by conscious people about possibly abandoning the unconscious ones to their fate (they didn't). It made for some fun in a group mostly known for beer n' pretzels style gaming.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Dec 28, 2012 6:39:56 GMT -8
I don't know that I agree that because someone died in the first 5 minutes the gm NECESSARILY made a cataclysmic design error. Sure that's possible. Throwing a dragon at a bunch of level 3 characters is a design mistake regardless of when you do it in the game. It is also possible that things just went sideways. It might have been a perfectly good idea. Such as, here's the party, here's a group of slavers who want to capture the pc's and sell them for profit. OH HOLY F**K that slaver just rolled a crit and then rolled 98% on the crit tables (neck broken instant death) ...
I have historically taken the view that if the pc's death wasn't going to mean anything then I might fudge a die roll to keep them alive. The more I think about this topic the more I actually lean towards the let the dice fall where they may because fundamentally I don't know what effect that character's death is going to have on the game. Yes it is possible that I will kill off someone's favorite character and they will be upset with me. It is also possible that their demise might spark a whole line of game that I never thought of. Who am I to deny that story to the players because it wasn't the one I thought of?
Just my 2 krupplenicks on the subject, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Dec 28, 2012 8:12:46 GMT -8
I -LOVE- variables in gaming. Randomness really gets me going. I love random magic items, random encounters, etc. I have even gone so far as to make a "crazy" character where I flipped a coin and on heads I did a normal action, on tails I rolled on a chart that determined my action. I had charts for both social encounters and combat encounters. It was a blast.
That being said, when I GM I will only let the randomness go so far. If I let you roll for random treasure, its on a level appropriate chart. If I roll random encounters, it will be on a chart with area appropriate and level appropriate baddies. That chart might go from a very simple encounter to an incredibly challenging encounter, but it will never be an impossible or insanely difficult one. By that same token, if its early in the night... or a monster gets a double crit and smashes a PC in the first round unto death... then yeah I'll fudge the roll. You still get hit, its just miraculously put you at 1 point from death. Depending on what happens you may still die, but it wasn't just because of luck on my part.
I guess I just don't like killing players if that's not my intention or that they didn't do anything to deserve it. When it suits the story and I want that tension, I will go all out trying to kill a player or players. But if its just a flavor encounter or something, and someone dies because of a bad choice or something I will see it as a chance for complications making good roleplay, but if they are approaching the situation correctly and I just get a lucky hit that's lame. So I will fudge that. Usually though, I don't. I also don't use a screen, so my players know when I do or do not fudge.
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on Dec 29, 2012 14:25:58 GMT -8
To fudge, or not to fudge... that is the question. whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous storking, or to fudge all exploding dice, and by opposing end them? To crit; To TPK; no more; and by a TPK to say we end The heartache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To crit. To TPK; To TPK: perchance to resurrect: ay, theres the rub; For in that total party kill, what new characters may come When we have randomly rolled another mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so changed dice; For who would bear the whips and scorns of bad GMing, The rules lawyers nagging, the munchkin's looting, The pangs of blood thirsty sex crazed teenagers, the lawful good alignments delay, The insolence of thespians and the spurns That patient roleplaying of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With 9 Elite Controllers? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary gaming group, But that the dread of something after a confirmed crit, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No character may make death saves, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.
|
|