|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 8:41:00 GMT -8
Im not saying they accuse the wrong person, Im saying they have bupkis for clues. And you'd just give them the clues? Isnt that what Investigation skills are for? If youre just going to assume they succeed, ie just hand them the clues without a roll, that seems to be ignoring the possibilities of dice rolls to me. If the players are clueless I would give the player a hint or an idea that the character would have known despite the players lack of knowledge (cluex4). But more than thid I would let the world continue and maby the characters won't solve the problem. This isn't a dead end, it the beginning of a new story. Something interesting will happen because the characters failed.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 8:53:39 GMT -8
I would just give them clues that are necessary for progress. If they don't find all clues then it's thier problem to solve. "create problems, not solutions". And if they accuse the wrong suspect thats just a great future hook/complication. I don't want to assume too much here, so correct me if I'm wrong here: If the players fail to find any clues, you'd just give them the clues they need to progress? How is that not a quantum ogre? Or, if they failed due to bad die rolls, a fudge? I think a lot of a GMs decision on whether or not to fudge, or to move the ogre comes down to their ability to read the table. In Tim's story above, the players were clearly upset over the death of a PC during something that they didn't expect to be lethal. So he fudged, and the players were happy and had fun. If, in the same scenario, the players had NOT been upset, I doubt he'd have fudged. As a GM, maybe it isn't about what makes the best STORY, but what facilitates the most FUN. If my players clearly want a game where they steamroll everything and don't want to be hurt or killed, then damn it, that's the game I'm going to run. (That's hyperbole, I don't know a single player that wants that type of game)
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 8:59:44 GMT -8
After reading through this thread, I don't actually think this would make a good show topic, because the resolution reached on the show would almost certainly be the same one reached here, "Different strokes for different folks"
Some GMs fudge dice and move ogres because they think it will enhance the game for the players.
Some GMs refuse to fudge rolls and move ogres because they think THAT will enhance the game for the players.
NEITHER style of play is wrong, and neither type of GM is going to change their mind on their stance, because they believe on a fundamental level that their style is what makes things the most fun.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 13, 2017 9:35:42 GMT -8
because they believe on a fundamental level that their style is what makes things the most fun. minor quibble, but I would add "for my group" in my case. I'm happy to presume that others are have just as much fun playing their way. I'm not looking to change minds here, just explain my position.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 10:00:10 GMT -8
*I never miscalculate balance, because I never attempt to calculate it in the first place. I just want to say that you sound like an excellent GM. "Fuck CRs, you're fighting an ogre now!" That's how I do, too.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 10:09:44 GMT -8
I would just give them clues that are necessary for progress. If they don't find all clues then it's thier problem to solve. "create problems, not solutions". And if they accuse the wrong suspect thats just a great future hook/complication. I don't want to assume too much here, so correct me if I'm wrong here: If the players fail to find any clues, you'd just give them the clues they need to progress? How is that not a quantum ogre? Or, if they failed due to bad die rolls, a fudge? I think a lot of a GMs decision on whether or not to fudge, or to move the ogre comes down to their ability to read the table. In Tim's story above, the players were clearly upset over the death of a PC during something that they didn't expect to be lethal. So he fudged, and the players were happy and had fun. If, in the same scenario, the players had NOT been upset, I doubt he'd have fudged. As a GM, maybe it isn't about what makes the best STORY, but what facilitates the most FUN. If my players clearly want a game where they steamroll everything and don't want to be hurt or killed, then damn it, that's the game I'm going to run. (That's hyperbole, I don't know a single player that wants that type of game) If I made a mystery adventure I wouldn't make clues for the players to find, I would do a detailed time-line and if the players investigate they would find clues if they asked relevant questions. If for example a witness is lying I would let the players roll to notice the lie (they fail). If the players later get totally stuck in the investigation I would give hints to get them thinking BUT I wouldn't say "witness X was lying". Or maby I could use a characters background or similar to give an idea for a posible clue that the player haven't realized. Hope you understand what I mean and the difference between that and dice fudging.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 10:15:05 GMT -8
So, you feel that the dice are the ultimate arbiter, unless the dice have somehow halted progress of the story you've created, or have hindered the player's enjoyment of the game.
Got it.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 10:50:52 GMT -8
So, you feel that the dice are the ultimate arbiter, unless the dice have somehow halted progress of the story you've created, or have hindered the player's enjoyment of the game. Got it. No I feel that if you choose to roll dice you have to follow the dice. I haven't said anything about ignoring the dice, just that if you have an pre-determined outcome you shouldn't roll the dice. You don't have to have the players roll to understand that someone is lying, if it is important for the story (or the person is a bad lier) don't roll the dice.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 11:57:21 GMT -8
Except in your previous example, you said you'd give the players some help after they failed to roll to detect the lie.
So it sounds to me like you feel that, in SOME cases, it's okay to give the players a little help if the dice have hampered the progression of the story. Which is all any of the "cheaters" are advocating for.
Also, our examples have gotten far beyond the original example of not killing a PC in the first couple sessions while they are still getting comfy. If I die in a game, I want it to be because I did something incredibly heroic, or incredibly stupid, and not because the first goblin I fought rolled a 20. Before anyone says "Then why bother rolling the dice at all?" I'll say, because it's fun. That first fight feels pretty cool, playing with a new character, learning his abilities and such. Just because I know my GM might lower the damage the goblin rolls when he hit me doesn't make it less fun for me, because any GM I play with, I trust to not pull punches once I've found my feet.
Knowing that he fudged die rolls when I was level 1 doesn't make me trust him less, because I know he's not just sitting there as a die rolling referee, he's there crafting an enjoyable experience for me. If you automatically assume that a GM who fudges early die rolls is going to do it to you later, well, that says more to me about YOU than anything else.
But that's just me as a player.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 12:24:35 GMT -8
Except in your previous example, you said you'd give the players some help after they failed to roll to detect the lie. So it sounds to me like you feel that, in SOME cases, it's okay to give the players a little help if the dice have hampered the progression of the story. Which is all any of the "cheaters" are advocating for. I said: If the players later get totally stuck in the investigation I would give hints to get them thinking BUT I wouldn't say "witness X was lying".
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 12:29:25 GMT -8
The line directly above the line about them getting stuck is you saying you'd give them a roll, and assuming they fail. You then mention giving them other clues.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 12:44:13 GMT -8
The line directly above the line about them getting stuck is you saying you'd give them a roll, and assuming they fail. You then mention giving them other clues. Maby I was unclear I ment for that to be an example that if they fail a roll that roll is still a fail even if they get stuck later.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 12:48:07 GMT -8
I don't think anyone has argued for turning a player's failed die roll into a success. Pretty much everything I've read in this thread has suggested the exact thing you did, which is giving the players a small nudge or a clue if their earlier failures have brought the game to a halt, and the players are getting frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 13, 2017 13:05:19 GMT -8
I don't think anyone has argued for turning a player's failed die roll into a success. Pretty much everything I've read in this thread has suggested the exact thing you did, which is giving the players a small nudge or a clue if their earlier failures have brought the game to a halt, and the players are getting frustrated. The difference is that the other people say that you should change what you had planned or fudge the dice roll to see if the person was lying. Or use what the players think is happening in stead of what you decided was happening. I think you do yourself a disservice by "helping" the story in stead of letting it go wherever the dice decide -even if that is a dead end.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on May 13, 2017 13:23:57 GMT -8
Except literally no one has said that you should fudge a player's roll to determine if the person was lying.
As far as changing the story to what the players think is happening vs. what you had originally planned, that brings up an important question: at what point is the story concrete? If early on I decided that a dog was black, but then one of the players says "I think the dog is going to be black and white" and the players have never seen the dog, and the color of the dog has never been mentioned in game, am I "cheating" if I decide that the dog is now black and white?
Personally, I feel the story isn't set until it gets communicated to the players. I get that you feel that as soon as the GM thinks "The dog is black." that the story is set in stone.
It may be confirmation bias, but in the 20 years I've been gaming, and running games, I've never been upset that a GM was willing to alter their plans to make the game more fun for the players. I've also never had a player tell me they were upset that they thought I changed the game to make it more fun for them. I HAVE been upset when a GM changed things they already established as true, and will do everything in my power to avoid doing the same to my players.
It all comes down to two of Happy Jack's favorite words, "Yes, and", if you can't roll with the unexpected, I personally don't feel you can run a very good game.
|
|